Hi y'all - yes I do like Wall St. and millions of stock holders. For me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. If I don't like a company (or a CEO) I'll sell the stock and if others do likewise the value of the company will be diminished (unlike the Govt.) If we had more stock holders, we'd have more democracy, and no, it doesn't cost a lot - I can buy or sell any amount of stock for $7. There are brokers who help small investors get started by offering $4 trades and they will deal in fractions of a share.
On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…If Govt. becomes involved in a business it necessarily sets up a > huge bureaucracy in its own image to > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > function efficiently in the long term…” – clog > > Yeh, sorta like Wall Street and millions of stock holders. Talk about > a huge bureaucracy! And, the government claims to regulate all of this > too!!! Capitalism bureaucracy built in it’s own image for sure. > Clearly, the ‘economy’, whatever anyone wants to mean by the term, is > drained fully by CEO’s with BILLIONS of dollars in stock and having to > give additional profits to the stock holders. Anyone who wants to buy > stuff has to pay so much more because of this grossly inefficient, top > heavy and greedy system. > > On Dec 11, 7:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - "First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business > > ‘we’ want > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about it. > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At least > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to such > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us’ to > > turn a profit! Strange! " > > > Indeed I have only been in this country for 21 years but I have > > studied the effect of Govt. ovwnership of business in the Eastern > > Bloc, and I've seen the results. If Govt. becomes involved in a > > business it necessarily sets up a huge bureaucracy in its own image to > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > function efficiently in the long term. > > We can't say what strings are attached to the Auto deal yet as it has > > not been completed, but so far it looks more promising, from a > > taxpayer point of view, than the Bank debacle. > > During the recent collapse of many banks the FDIC (and I don't > > normally praise the Govt.) has done a fine job of ensuring stability > > and guaranteeing accounts. Note the difference in the UK where no FDIC > > existed and we were treated to videos of Building Society customers > > lined up and screaming for their money. Eventually the UK Govt. were > > forced to step in and offer their version of the FDIC. > > > On Dec 10, 11:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. nor the > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. As the > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in the > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up our bank > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the same > > > deal.” – clog > > > > Clog, I know you weren’t born here nor are you old enough to know what > > > all has transpired when it comes to such issues here in the US. So, I > > > don’t blame you much for being what appears to be quite naïve. > > > > First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business ‘we’ want > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about it. > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At least > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to such > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us’ to > > > turn a profit! Strange! > > > Anyway, no, the Govt. (We the people.) do not do a good job of backing > > > up our bank accounts. Think “Savings and Loan Crisis’. The thing that > > > McCain was deeply involved in among others. > > > And, what is ‘common knowledge’ (about the banks) is in fact not the > > > reality. IF one reads the 108 pages or so of the first bank bailout, > > > what it said was that the banks should just take the money and buy > > > other banks! It said nothing about helping people and businesses who > > > couldn’t get loans. Look it up. Most of what is presented on corporate > > > TV is half truths at best. At worst, much of it makes the old USSR’s > > > Pravda look like a comic book! > > > > On Dec 10, 7:25 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. nor the > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. As the > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in the > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up our bank > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the same > > > > deal. > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Again, the notion of nationalization isn't being mentioned. I would be > > > > > for that. At least that way, 'we the people' would get some sort of > > > > > return on our investment. By now, we should own almost every US bank. > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:30 pm, Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > <<$70/hr. with no reference to benefits. I >> > > > > > > > That includes benefits to *retirees*. > > > > > > > According to my limited accounting, the benefits that retirees > > > > > > receive > > > > > > should be expensed as they occurred and not attached to future > > > > > > employees. I'd like to see this topic explored in greater detail. > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:39 pm, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I've just done some further research on payscales and > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > come up with no solid answer. The UAW (I'd expect them to be > > > > > > > biased) > > > > > > > mention $30/hr plus benefits (what do the benefits amount to?) > > > > > > > Faux > > > > > > > news and the like mention (I'd expect them to be biased too) > > > > > > > $70/hr. > > > > > > > with no reference to benefits. I suppose the truth is somewhere in > > > > > > > between In any event, these rates seem rather high to a poor old > > > > > > > Mid > > > > > > > Southerner for manual labor. Why don't they locate their factories > > > > > > > (not overseas) where labor is cheaper? I don't know what the pay > > > > > > > rates > > > > > > > are at the Tennessee Saturn Plant - they seem to be struggling > > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > I'm sure a plant located in North Mississippi would be more > > > > > > > economical, but would the drug free, semi skilled, reliable labor > > > > > > > force be available? > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:26 am, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The true average is represented below - it is not $70 per hour, > > > > > > > > per > > > > > > > > se. SPIN DOCTORS are at it again. > > > > > > > > > *"That $70 per hour figure is arrived at by dividing total > > > > > > > > labour costs by > > > > > > > > the total number of workers, then by average hours worked. It > > > > > > > > also happens > > > > > > > > to include pension obligations for GM, which is comprised of > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > payments accrued by past workers. So, while the average worker > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > makes closer to **$30 per > > > > > > > > hour*<http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm02.php> > > > > > > > > *, the total wages paid out include payments to retirees who > > > > > > > > have chosen to > > > > > > > > defer payment of their wages."* > > > > > > > > > I personally don't have as much pity as I maybe should for the > > > > > > > > businesses > > > > > > > > that are drowning in overstock. It is hard to imagine Mom & Pop > > > > > > > > businesses > > > > > > > > with dangerous overstock - because it is not easy for them to > > > > > > > > get the > > > > > > > > capitol to get the inventory in the first place. No, I think > > > > > > > > it is the > > > > > > > > retail giant/corpses with excess inventory they cannot sell, > > > > > > > > with bloated > > > > > > > > expectations, that have also been charging too damn much for > > > > > > > > little (think > > > > > > > > inflation, right?). > > > > > > > > > Good Mom & Pops, like I work for, plan ahead, and use stable > > > > > > > > business > > > > > > > > practices to keep afloat. Most businesses flop in the first > > > > > > > > year due to > > > > > > > > crappy planning anyway..is it our responsability as a consumer > > > > > > > > to rescue > > > > > > > > them or the Corpses? Homoconsumerensis to the rescue? It's > > > > > > > > their job to do > > > > > > > > thier homework just like each individual needs to guard their > > > > > > > > credit > > > > > > > > score. I know about hard luck, it happens, but haven't we grown > > > > > > > > far too > > > > > > > > careless in our Hummer driving, McDonald's grubbing, plastic > > > > > > > > burning, > > > > > > > > reality tv watching, FUNK? As you can tell I am feeling miserly > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > morning... > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Clogtowner > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - welcome to capitalism. The good times are great, > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > business is cyclical and must be prepared for. He who builds > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > business out of unsupported credit will fail. The Govt. > > > > > > > > > Bailout of the > > > > > > > > > car industry is supposed to be a loan with strings - nothing > > > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > > with that, as long as the taxpayer benefits?? In the interest > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > preserving some manufacturing base in this country, it would > > > > > > > > > seem to > > > > > > > > > be justified. Having said that, the strings must be tight - > > > > > > > > > why do GM > > > > > > > > > etc. workers average $70/hr when Toyota doing the same job in > > > > > > > > > the same > > > > > > > > > country average $40? That would be one of the strings if I > > > > > > > > > was making > > > > > > > > > the loan. > > > > > > > > > As for the retail sector - it is complex and unwieldy. I'm > > > > > > > > > not sure > > > > > > > > > what sort of Bailout the author is suggesting - perhaps low > > > > > > > > > interest > > > > > > > > > loans to qualified businesses. This brings us back to > > > > > > > > > unsupported > > > > > > > > > credit. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
